I noticed King Juan Carlos has a "I" even though he's the first "Juan Carlos" King of Spain.

I read that before Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I was just known as Elizabeth.

srivishnu

07-20-2006 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

I noticed King Juan Carlos has a "I" even though he's the first "Juan Carlos" King of Spain.

I read that before Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I was just known as Elizabeth.

The current British monarch is HM Queen Elizabeth II and the previous queen is known as HM Queen Elizabeth (Elizabeth II's mother) whom later is known as HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother upon the death of HM King George VI on 6th February 1952.In order to differentiate both Elizabeth,the current queen is known as HM Queen Elizabeth II upon her ascension to the British throne in 1952.So HM Queen Elizabeth II is the second Elizabeth in the House of Windsor although I am aware that there were Elizabeth I from the House of Tudors.Although the late Queen Mother did not use 'I' in her official name,she is widely known as the first Elizabeth from the House of Windsor and not the first Elizabeth in the English dynasty or perhaps the first in the dynasty of the United Kingdom.The usage of 'I','II' and so on in the English Royal Family is based on protocol and is not used based on personal preference.As a conclusion,I would say that the usage of 'I' by the King of Spain is based on personal preference rather protocol.

Stefan

07-20-2006 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

I noticed King Juan Carlos has a "I" even though he's the first "Juan Carlos" King of Spain.

I read that before Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I was just known as Elizabeth.

It depend on the Country. In the UK it is only used when there are 2 Monarchs with the same name like in the Case of Elizabeth. The same can be said for the Netherlands where nether Wilhelmina, Juliana or Beatrix has a regnal number. But in Belgium King Baudouin is known as Baudouin I. the same for his grandfather King Albert I. who had the regnal number already before the accession of albert II. Also in Spain it is Juan Caros I. and not Juan carlos.

srivishnu

07-20-2006 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

It depend on the Country. In the UK it is only used when there are 2 Monarchs with the same name like in the Case of Elizabeth. The same can be said for the Netherlands where nether Wilhelmina, Juliana or Beatrix has a regnal number. But in Belgium King Baudouin is known as Baudouin I. the same for his grandfather King Albert I. who had the regnal number already before the accession of albert II. Also in Spain it is Juan Caros I. and not Juan carlos.

Yes I agree with you that the usage of the regnal number depends on the country as only the British Royal Family do not do things as they wish.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-20-2006 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

The current British monarch is HM Queen Elizabeth II and the previous queen is known as HM Queen Elizabeth (Elizabeth II's mother) whom later is known as HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother upon the death of HM King George VI on 6th February 1952.In order to differentiate both Elizabeth,the current queen is known as HM Queen Elizabeth II upon her ascension to the British throne in 1952.So HM Queen Elizabeth II is the second Elizabeth in the House of Windsor although I am aware that there were Elizabeth I from the House of Tudors.Although the late Queen Mother did not use 'I' in her official name,she is widely known as the first Elizabeth from the House of Windsor and not the first Elizabeth in the English dynasty or perhaps the first in the dynasty of the United Kingdom.The usage of 'I','II' and so on in the English Royal Family is based on protocol and is not used based on personal preference.As a conclusion,I would say that the usage of 'I' by the King of Spain is based on personal preference rather protocol.

I wasn't talking about the Queen Mother, whom I refer to as Ms. Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon to avoid confusion. I was referring to Elizabeth from the Tudor Dynasty. Elizabeth I.

Oppie

07-20-2006 01:24 PM

Numbering is not use for Queen Consort. Queen Elizabeth II is the II because of Queen Elizabeth I not because of her mother.

Queen Mary was a consort and was refered to as Queen Mary even though there had been two Queen Mary (Queen Mary I and Queen Mary II)

Usually numbers aren't used until there is a second, third ect... Queen Victoria will be Queen Victoria until a hypothetical situation in which Prince William's daughter becomes Queen Victoria II, then Queen Victoria becomes Queen Victoria I.

so I am not sure who you are refering to when you say that these two men have numbers added. Maybe you can post a link.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-20-2006 05:33 PM

OMG, I already said I wasn't referring to Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon(Queen Mother) I said I was referring to Elizabeth Tudor(Elizabeth II).

I asked if MONARCHS (males in particular) if they always ordinals. I know consorts(even male ones) do not have ordinals.

Oppie

07-20-2006 06:02 PM

Quote:

OMG, I already said I wasn't referring to Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon(Queen Mother) I said I was referring to Elizabeth Tudor(Elizabeth II).

I asked if MONARCHS (males in particular) if they always ordinals. I know consorts(even male ones) do not have ordinals.

Um sorry (?) but srivishnu made a point I was talking about that, Yes I know you are talking about male monarchs but another point was brought up in this thread. Captializing makes it seem like you are yelling.

I tried to answer your second part. On both the official Belgium and Spanish site Baudouin and Juan Carlos do not have ordinals. So IMO the answer is no. Unless someone can find another official document that states that Beaudouin, Juan Carlos or another King uses the I.

Avalon

07-20-2006 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

OMG, I already said I wasn't referring to Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon(Queen Mother) I said I was referring to Elizabeth Tudor(Elizabeth II).

I asked if MONARCHS (males in particular) if they always ordinals. I know consorts(even male ones) do not have ordinals.

Ordinals are used for the 2nd, 3rd... Monarchs with the same name. The first Monarchs do not use them.
Queen Elizabeth (Tudor) was simply known as Queen Elizabeth (Queen Bess). The ordinals, stricktly speaking, are there to help distinguish the Monarchs. If there was no Monarch with the same name before, it would be really hard to mix him up (who can you mix say Queen Elizabeth I with, if there were no Queen Elizabeths before her).
The ordinals are added after the death, to distinguish form possible future Monarchs with the same name.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-20-2006 10:47 PM

But it's different for every country right?

Because King Juan Carlos is Juan Carlos I. So if Leonor became Queen would she be Leonor or Leonor I?

Oppie

07-20-2006 11:15 PM

The official Spanish site does not refer to him as Juan Carlos I, where are you getting that information from ?

King Juan Carlos I is also our first King with two names. He could have chosen one or the other and continue the previous numerals of Kings named Juan or Kings named Carlos, but he kept his name and started a new tradition.
But Felipe will be King Felipe and the number.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-21-2006 01:24 AM

No, I'm asking if it's a guy thing.

When Queen Elizabeth I ruled England in the 1500s, she was just known as Queen Elizabeth.

But King Juan Carlos is King Juan Carlos I. So I'm wondering if males have ordinals regardless if they're the first ones to use the regnal name or not.

Toledo

07-21-2006 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

No, I'm asking if it's a guy thing.

When Queen Elizabeth I ruled England in the 1500s, she was just known as Queen Elizabeth.

But King Juan Carlos is King Juan Carlos I. So I'm wondering if males have ordinals regardless if they're the first ones to use the regnal name or not.

Oh, I see now. More royal men use a number while for our royal ladies is just implied (like common knowledge?) but not constantly mentioned. Maybe is a guy thing after all!

srivishnu

07-21-2006 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

I wasn't talking about the Queen Mother, whom I refer to as Ms. Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon to avoid confusion. I was referring to Elizabeth from the Tudor Dynasty. Elizabeth I.

According to the British Royal Family's web site,Elizabeth from the House of Tudors is known as Elizabeth I.

srivishnu

07-21-2006 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oppie

Numbering is not use for Queen Consort. Queen Elizabeth II is the II because of Queen Elizabeth I not because of her mother.

Queen Mary was a consort and was refered to as Queen Mary even though there had been two Queen Mary (Queen Mary I and Queen Mary II)

Usually numbers aren't used until there is a second, third ect... Queen Victoria will be Queen Victoria until a hypothetical situation in which Prince William's daughter becomes Queen Victoria II, then Queen Victoria becomes Queen Victoria I.

so I am not sure who you are refering to when you say that these two men have numbers added. Maybe you can post a link.

The British Royal Family are different from the other European Royal Families.Never compare the British Royal Family with other European Royal Houses.

srivishnu

07-21-2006 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

OMG, I already said I wasn't referring to Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon(Queen Mother) I said I was referring to Elizabeth Tudor(Elizabeth II).

I asked if MONARCHS (males in particular) if they always ordinals. I know consorts(even male ones) do not have ordinals.

Elizabeth from the House of Tudor is known as Elizabeth I not Elizabeth II.Male monarchs do have the regnal number if they choose to use the name of their predecessor as their official name such as George V and George VI.Even HRH Prince Charles of Wales has indicated that he plans to use George VII as his official name once he ascends the British throne upon the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II.But male consorts usually do not use the regnal number in their official name as they are not the monarch but female consorts is allowed to use the regnal number if they want to as they are the consort of the Head of State.

Warren

07-21-2006 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

.. female consorts is allowed to use the regnal number if they want to as they are the consort of the Head of State.

Is there an example of a British Queen Consort using a regnal number? Or non-British Queen Consorts?

Frothy

07-21-2006 12:32 PM

No. A regnal number implies ruling authority which consorts do not have.

Both male and female monarchs do not use a regnal number if they are the first. We in Britain speak of "King John" and "Queen Anne" Not John I and Anne I. Not until they have successors with the same name would they be designated as the first.

It is absolutely wrong to say Elizabeth is called 'II' because she is second in the House of Windsor, houses do not matter and consorts do not matter when it comes to regnal numbers.

There has only been one King Consort of England and that was Phillip II of Spain, King Consort to Mary I.

Frothy

07-21-2006 12:34 PM

Warren... if you want to go back ::cue spooky music:: WAAAAAY back, then in ancient Egypt the Romanesque queens of the Pharoah had numbers; Cleopatra of 'Anthony and Cleopatra' fame was Cleopatra VII, it was the tradition that Pharaoh, usually called Ptolomey, would take a bride Cleopatra and both would take numerals. Cleopatra VII held the power of a dowager through her own cunning and because her husband the Pharaoh Ptolomey was dead. Other than that I don't know.

Edited to add: Srivishnu said:

"But male consorts usually do not use the regnal number in their official name as they are not the monarch but female consorts is allowed to use the regnal number if they want to as they are the consort of the Head of State."

I don't know who told you this but they misled you. Queen consorts in Britain never, and I mean never, use a regnal number; it is reserved for the Head of State, the monarch. William III and Mary II were techincal co-regnants.

Toledo

07-21-2006 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

Is there an example of a British Queen Consort using a regnal number? Or non-British Queen Consorts?

I'm posting this quick by memory, so correct me if I'm wrong but I think the wife of William of Orange had one because they were both crowned as equals during the restoration, right? She was the heir to her father and her husband William of Orange was the one who had the military man power to put her on the throne, A kind of similar situation happened in Spain when Queen Isabel of Castille married King Fernando of Aragon and both combined their possesions into one country. They had numerals in history but I don't recall her having it in her lifetime since she was the first Isabel to use that name as Queen in her own right. The second one, in the 19th century, did use the numeral.

Warren

07-21-2006 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo

I'm posting this quick by memory, so correct me if I'm wrong but I think the wife of William of Orange had one because they were both crowned as equals during the restoration, right? She was the heir to her father and her husband William of Orange was the one who had the military man power to put her on the throne, A kind of similar situation happened in Spain when Queen Isabel of Castille married King Fernando of Aragon and both combined their possesions into one country. They had numerals in history but I don't recall her having it in her lifetime since she was the first Isabel to use that name as Queen in her own right. The second one, in the 19th century, did use the numeral.

Both William & Mary and Ferdinand & Isabel were joint monarchs; I'm trusting the member who claimed "female consorts [are] allowed to use the regnal number if they want to" will provide an example of one doing so (or provide the source for this statement).

Furienna

07-21-2006 04:45 PM

I don't think the consorts ever have numbers. Only monarchs have numbers. Instead, consorts are identified by their birth kingdom or their last name. This is the list of the monarchs, consorts and hei appearents in Sweden since the mid-1700s. Our current king's grandmother is brought into this list because she was supposed to become a queen and because she is an ancestor to our current royal family. For the same reason, I also put our current king's parents, who never became king and queen, even though that was the plan, in this list, in paranthesis. HG = Holstein-Gottorp dynasty, B = Bernadotte dynasty.

Adolf Frederic & Louise Ulrique of Prussia (HG)

Gustav III & Sophie Madeleine of Denmark. (HG)

Gustav IV Adolf & Fredrique of Baden. (HG)

Charles XIII & Charlotte of Oldenburg. (HG)

Charles XIV John & Desirée Clary. (B)

Oscar I & Josephine of Leuchtenberg. (B)

Charles XV & Louise of the Netherlands. (B)

Oscar II & Sophie of Nassau. (B)

Gustav V & Victoria of Baden. (B)

Gustav VI Adolf & Margareth of Connaught + Louise Mountbatten (Gustav Adolf was married twice. Margareth died, and three after her death, he got married to Louise. Margareth had children, but never became queen. Louise became queen, but never had children.) (B)

(Gustav Adolf Edmund & Sibylla of Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha. (B) )

Carl XVI Gustaf & Silvia Sommerlath. (B)

In the same way, this would be a list of the Brittish monarchs, consorts and heir appearants for the same time period. I put Frederic Louis and Augusta of Sachsen-Gotha into paranthesis, because they were supposed to become king and queen, and they are ancestors to the current royal family. Wallis Simpson is put into paranthesis as well, since she never was a queen. H = Hannover dynasty, W = Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha dynasty a k a Windsor dynasty.

George I & Sophie Dorothy of Celle. (H)

George II & Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach. (H)

(Frederic Louis & Augusta of Sachsen-Gotha. (H) )

George III & Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. (H)

George VI & Caroline of Braunschweig. (H)

William IV & Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen. (H)

Victoria (I) & Albert of Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha. (H)

Edward VII & Alexandra of Denmark. (W)

George V & Mary of Teck. (W)

Edward VIII (& Wallis Simpson). (W)

George VI & Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. (W)

Elizabeth II & Philip Mountbatten. (W)

I believe our Swedish king Oscar I was always known as Oscar I after he had become our king, even before his son was known as King Oscar II. But I'm not sure.

Toledo

07-21-2006 05:39 PM

Is very rare to have the situation that would make two married monarchs using ordinals because traditionally the throne is inherited by one individual, not two.

Besides William and Mary of England and Isabel and Fernando of Spain, the only other historical curiosity that comes to mind is the case of Marie Therese of Austria and her husband, Francis, Duke of Lorraine. She is commonly known as Empress Marie Therese and is the only Hapsburg female that inherited the assorted family possesions. So she could be somewhat called Marie Therese I for her own possesions. But there was no Austrian Empire per se for her to be numbered Empress Maria Therese I. She, daugther of an Emperor, assumed the imperial rank when her husband Francis Stephen of Lorraine became Francis I, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
But I have not read anything on her being Marie Therese I, Holy Roman Empress. Even when she, like Isabel of Castille, was the stronger part in the marriage.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-21-2006 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

Elizabeth from the House of Tudor is known as Elizabeth I not Elizabeth II.Male monarchs do have the regnal number if they choose to use the name of their predecessor as their official name such as George V and George VI.Even HRH Prince Charles of Wales has indicated that he plans to use George VII as his official name once he ascends the British throne upon the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II.But male consorts usually do not use the regnal number in their official name as they are not the monarch but female consorts is allowed to use the regnal number if they want to as they are the consort of the Head of State.

OMG what are you talking about?! I SAID ELIZABETH I IS ELIZABETH TUDOR. I said no such thing that Elizabeth Tudor was Elizabeth II. Re-read my posts please.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-21-2006 05:59 PM

Seriously though, many of you did not read my posts properly.

I DID NOT SAY ELIZABETH TUDOR WAS ELIZABETH II.

NOR DID I SAY ELIZABETH BOWLES-LYON, THE QUEEN MOTHER WAS ELIZABETH I.

I have no idea where you people got those. Jesus Christ...

Toledo

07-21-2006 06:06 PM

A simple misunderstanment, so many Elizabeths in here are becoming confused with one another.
Good that our Spanish Elizabeths use Spain's version of the name: Isabel. :)

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-21-2006 06:22 PM

Even I was starting to get confused o_0

Anyway since King Juan Carlos is addressed as Juan Carlos I, with an ordinal, would Leonor be addressed Queen Leonor I (if she becomes Queen Regnant that is).

Toledo

07-21-2006 06:43 PM

my friend, I think the polite answer to that is that you just answered your own question. :rolleyes:

And now I got to get going, everyone have a great weekend... :)

CrownPrinceLorenzo

07-21-2006 06:46 PM

But my original question was, if it's a male thing.

Furienna

07-21-2006 07:16 PM

It's mostly a male thing, but some sovreign queens have numbers too.

Alexandria

07-21-2006 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

Seriously though, many of you did not read my posts properly.

I DID NOT SAY ELIZABETH TUDOR WAS ELIZABETH II.

NOR DID I SAY ELIZABETH BOWLES-LYON, THE QUEEN MOTHER WAS ELIZABETH I.

I have no idea where you people got those. Jesus Christ...

Let's just take a breather. There's no need to "yell" or use the Lord's name in vain, even if you are frustrated.

Sometimes posts are not read clearly enough or sometimes people misunderstand posts. Such confusion is to be expected when people are typing to a screen rather than talking face to face.

It's all a misunderstanding -- it's nothing to get into a complete tizzy about and to yell at each other for.

AlexandriaRoyal Forums Administrator

srivishnu

07-22-2006 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrinceLorenzo

OMG what are you talking about?! I SAID ELIZABETH I IS ELIZABETH TUDOR. I said no such thing that Elizabeth Tudor was Elizabeth II. Re-read my posts please.

In your earlier post you mentioned this "OMG, I already said I wasn't referring to Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon (Queen Mother) I said I was referring to Elizabeth Tudor (Elizabeth II).I asked if MONARCHS (males in particular) if they always ordinals. I know consorts(even male ones) do not have ordinals". Please read your post again carefully where you mentioned Elizabeth II in the brackets after Elizabeth Tudor as bolded in the above sentence taken from your post.

srivishnu

07-22-2006 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothy

Warren... if you want to go back ::cue spooky music:: WAAAAAY back, then in ancient Egypt the Romanesque queens of the Pharoah had numbers; Cleopatra of 'Anthony and Cleopatra' fame was Cleopatra VII, it was the tradition that Pharaoh, usually called Ptolomey, would take a bride Cleopatra and both would take numerals. Cleopatra VII held the power of a dowager through her own cunning and because her husband the Pharaoh Ptolomey was dead. Other than that I don't know.

Edited to add: Srivishnu said:

"But male consorts usually do not use the regnal number in their official name as they are not the monarch but female consorts is allowed to use the regnal number if they want to as they are the consort of the Head of State."

I don't know who told you this but they misled you. Queen consorts in Britain never, and I mean never, use a regnal number; it is reserved for the Head of State, the monarch. William III and Mary II were techincal co-regnants.

Queen consorts in Britain never used a regnal number because they choose not to use them.

Elspeth

07-22-2006 01:02 AM

There's no reason for a person who isn't a monarch regnant to use a regnal number. It's not so much a matter of choice as a matter of irrelevance. A female consort is every bit as much a consort rather than a ruler as a male consort is.

srivishnu

07-22-2006 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

There's no reason for a person who isn't a monarch regnant to use a regnal number. It's not so much a matter of choice as a matter of irrelevance. A female consort is every bit as much a consort rather than a ruler as a male consort is.

None of the Queen consort in Britain used a regnal number as none of their official names were a repetition of their predecessors.

Elspeth

07-22-2006 02:16 AM

None of the queens consort in Britain used a regnal number because they weren't regnant.

You'll notice that regnal numbers among kings and queens regnant are used whether the immediately preceding king or queen had the same name as the following one or not. Therefore, the notion that regnal numbers would be used for successive consorts with the same name is absurd.

Frothy

07-22-2006 03:12 AM

srivishnu hi,

Your posts on this are incorrect; consorts in Britain are not permitted to use a regnal number. Consorts with the same name have happened to come one after the other (the term 'succeeded' would be inappropriate) and of course, regnal numbers were not used as they had no right to them. Eg: Matilda of Flanders, queen of the Conqueror; next queen consort, Matilda of Scotland, to Henry I. Eleanor of Castille (queen to Edward I) was immediately after Eleanor of Provence (queen to Henry III).

Toledo

07-22-2006 09:30 AM

Maybe this will help: Monarchical ordinal
and Monarchical Ordinals from Answers.com. Scroll down past the Wikipedia tie in referrence, next to the picture of the Pope John Paul I you get this quote:As a rule of thumb, medieval European monarchs did not use ordinals at their own time, and those who used were rarities and even their use was sporadical.

Scroll down even further, next to the picture of Princess Grace Kelly there is another quote to help out:...While reigning monarchs use ordinals, ordinals are not used for queens consort and princesses consort...The lack of an ordinal in the case of queens consort and princesses consort complicating the recording of history, as there may be a number of consorts over time with the same name with no way to distinguish between them. For that reason, royal consorts after their deaths are recorded in history books and encyclopaedias through the use of their maiden name or pre-marital name.

...or the place they came from, remember that last names/surnames (as we know them today) are like new invention/trend in the middle ages.
:) Hope the links helps to shed some light on this thread's subject :)

Vecchiolarry

07-22-2006 10:45 AM

Ordinals - A Male Thing

Hi,

Lorenzo -
Maybe ordinals are a male thing because there are predominantly more male monarchs than female in history.
All those Fredericks and Christians in the Danish Royal Family and Gustavs in the Swedish and Nicholas and Alexanders in the Russian - confusing...... :confused:

Furienne -
Thank you for posting the Swedish kings and their wives; I always get them all mixed up!! :eek:

Larry

Furienna

07-22-2006 10:57 AM

Thank you! Just be sure to remember, that Margareth of Connaught never became our queen, and that Gustaf Adolf Edmund and Sibylla of Sachsen-Coburg and Gotha never became king and queen.

srivishnu

07-22-2006 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothy

No. A regnal number implies ruling authority which consorts do not have.

Both male and female monarchs do not use a regnal number if they are the first. We in Britain speak of "King John" and "Queen Anne" Not John I and Anne I. Not until they have successors with the same name would they be designated as the first.

It is absolutely wrong to say Elizabeth is called 'II' because she is second in the House of Windsor, houses do not matter and consorts do not matter when it comes to regnal numbers.

There has only been one King Consort of England and that was Phillip II of Spain, King Consort to Mary I.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the second Elizabeth in the House of Windsor else she would be known as Elizabeth III as there were Elizabeth I in the House of Tudor if the regnal number be continued from other houses of the same name from the English Royal Family.

srivishnu

07-22-2006 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry

Hi,

Lorenzo -
Maybe ordinals are a male thing because there are predominantly more male monarchs than female in history.
All those Fredericks and Christians in the Danish Royal Family and Gustavs in the Swedish and Nicholas and Alexanders in the Russian - confusing...... :confused:

Furienne -
Thank you for posting the Swedish kings and their wives; I always get them all mixed up!! :eek:

Larry

Yes I agree with you that there are more male monarchs than female but I don't agree that ordinals or regnal number is a male thing as Elizabeth II,Margerethe II and Elizabeth I are female monarchs.

Furienna

07-22-2006 11:32 AM

But since more men than women have been monarchs, it sort of becomes a male thing, even if females can have numbers too, if they become monarchs.

Warren

07-22-2006 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the second Elizabeth in the House of Windsor else she would be known as Elizabeth III as there were Elizabeth I in the House of Tudor if the regnal number be continued from other houses of the same name from the English Royal Family.

I don't understand what's going on here. Regnal numbers relate to reigning monarchs. There have been two Elizabeths as reigning Queens, thus we have today Elizabeth II. The number of times the same Queen Consort's name appears within a House or over centuries is irrelevant.

srivishnu

07-22-2006 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

I don't understand what's going on here. Regnal numbers relate to reigning monarchs. There have been two Elizabeths as reigning Queens, thus we have today Elizabeth II. The number of times the same Queen Consort's name appears within a House or over centuries is irrelevant.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning monarch of Britain and the consort of HRH Prince Philip,the Duke of Edinburgh.So the Duke of Edinburgh is the Queen's Consort and not The Queen unless HRH Prince Philip is the reigning monarch then The Queen is the King's Consort.

Frothy

07-22-2006 04:29 PM

Srivishnu,

You are just wrong, and perhaps we could ask a moderator to clarify that.

Elizabeth II is NOT known as 'II' because she is the second queen called Elizabeth in the house of Windsor.

She is known as the second "II" because she is the second ruling monarch of England called Elizabeth. Before her, Queen Elizabeth I was just referred to as 'Queen Elizabeth' in the same way that Queen Anne or King John are currently referred to without a "I" because there have been no further ruling Queens Anne or Kings John.

Like I told you, Srivishnu, Queens Consort with the same name have followed each other and no numerals have been used.

The regnal numeral has nothing to do with the house of the monarch; it is simply an indicator of how many monarchs of that name have ruled England.

Elizabeth is the second Queen Regnant of that name hence Elizabeth II. Nothing to do with her late Majesty the Queen Mother. Nothing to do with the House of Windsor.

Consorts have no right to a regnal number - at this point maybe a moderator should clarify that in case your posts are confusing anybody - I'm sure you mean well, but you have been misled on this by somebody!

Edited: In fact Warren's post above does clarify that you are wrong, and it should be definitive.

Elspeth

07-22-2006 04:34 PM

Correct, Frothy. The current numbering system started after the 1066 conquest and has run ever since, regardless of which House has occupied the throne. Hence Edward I wasn't the first king of England called Edward, but he was the first after the Conquest. No consorts have been numbered except for Mary II, and that's because she was Queen in her own right as well as William III's consort. It has nothing to do with how many consorts called Mary preceded her, but it indicates that only one Queen Regnant named Mary preceded her.

srivishnu

07-23-2006 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothy

Srivishnu,

You are just wrong, and perhaps we could ask a moderator to clarify that.

Elizabeth II is NOT known as 'II' because she is the second queen called Elizabeth in the house of Windsor.

She is known as the second "II" because she is the second ruling monarch of England called Elizabeth. Before her, Queen Elizabeth I was just referred to as 'Queen Elizabeth' in the same way that Queen Anne or King John are currently referred to without a "I" because there have been no further ruling Queens Anne or Kings John.

Like I told you, Srivishnu, Queens Consort with the same name have followed each other and no numerals have been used.

The regnal numeral has nothing to do with the house of the monarch; it is simply an indicator of how many monarchs of that name have ruled England.

Elizabeth is the second Queen Regnant of that name hence Elizabeth II. Nothing to do with her late Majesty the Queen Mother. Nothing to do with the House of Windsor.

Consorts have no right to a regnal number - at this point maybe a moderator should clarify that in case your posts are confusing anybody - I'm sure you mean well, but you have been misled on this by somebody!

Edited: In fact Warren's post above does clarify that you are wrong, and it should be definitive.

Yes,I know that Queen's Consort do not use the numerals as they are not the rightful heir to the throne such as HRH Prince Philip,the Duke of Edinburgh,HRH Prince Henrik of Denmark,the Prince Consort and HRH Prince Albert (HM Queen Victoria's husband).Elizabeth from the House of Tudor is known as Elizabeth I not just Queen Elizabeth.Maybe I have been misled by Buckingham Palace.So sorry for any confusion.

Warren

07-23-2006 05:17 AM

breathe deeply...

Quote:

Originally Posted by srivishnu

Yes,I know that Queen's Consort do not use the numerals as they are not the rightful heir to the throne such as HRH Prince Philip,the Duke of Edinburgh,HRH Prince Henrik of Denmark,the Prince Consort and HRH Prince Albert (HM Queen Victoria's husband).Elizabeth from the House of Tudor is known as Elizabeth I not just Queen Elizabeth.Maybe I have been misled by Buckingham Palace.So sorry for any confusion.

srivishnu, we have already clarified this issue.
Let's not now go down the same confused and meandering track by throwing regnal numbers and "rightful heirs to the throne" into the mix.
Forget Queen Consorts, forget heirs to thrones. Regnal numbers refer only to Monarchs. Full stop.

Emperor Roku XIV

10-15-2011 08:40 PM

Historical highest ordinal on a monarch?

I was wondering, what is the highest ordinal ever used by a monarch? The highest I can recall is Louis XIX, who reigned for only 20 minutes.

Reuss family is a peculiar case, because all male members bore and bear the name Heinrich followed by an ordinal number; the highest ordinal was LXXII (Fürst Heinrich LXXII Reuss zu Ebersdorf, 1797-1852).

hellokittylover

10-23-2011 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Roku XIV
(Post 1326667)

I was wondering, what is the highest ordinal ever used by a monarch? The highest I can recall is Louis XIX, who reigned for only 20 minutes.

I would like to hear the rest of this story. Wasn't Louis XVI the last King of France? I know he had a son, that some people call Louis XVII, but he died as a child. Where did Louis XVIII and XIX come from?

MAfan

10-23-2011 07:40 AM

Louis XVIII was the brother of Louis XVI; he succeeded to his nephew Louis XVII claiming the French throne and eventually became King of France in 1814-1815 after the fall of Napoleon.

Louis XIX, also known as the Duke of Angouleme, was the son of King Charles X, the younger brother of Louis XVI and Louis XVIII and successor to the French throne at the death of the latter. When Charles X abdicated in 1830, he was succeeded by his son Louis (XIX), who himself signed about 20 minutes later his own abdication.
Louis XIX was married to his cousin Marie Therese, the daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

While reigning monarchs use ordinals, ordinals are not used for royal consorts. So whereas King George V of the United Kingdom used an ordinal to distinguish him from other kings in the United Kingdoms called George, his wife, Queen Mary, had no ordinal.
The lack of an ordinal in the case of royal consorts complicates the recording of history, as there may be a number of consorts over time with the same name with no way to distinguish between them. For that reason, royal consorts after their deaths are recorded in history books and encyclopaedias through the use of their maiden name or, if from a noble family, its Royal House (dynastic name) or the name of the corresponding titled land.

"The first"

In some monarchies it is customary not to use an ordinal when there has been only one holder of that name. For example, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom will not be called Victoria I until there is a Victoria II. This tradition is applied in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway. It was also applied in most of the German monarchies and in the Hungarian. In Sweden, the practice is not consistent, as Sigismund and Adolf Frederick never have ordinals, whereas Frederick I often does.
Other monarchies do assign ordinals to monarchs who are the only ones of their name. This is a more recent invention and appears to be done for the first time when King Francis I of France issued testoons (silver coins) bearing the legend FRANCISCVS I DE. GR. FRANCORV. REX. This currently is the regular practice in Belgium, Spain and Monaco (at least for Prince Albert I, as Princess Louise Hippolyte, who reigned 150 years earlier, doesn't appear to have used an ordinal). It was also applied in Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Portugal (where, although this is the general rule, Kings Joseph and Luís are usually referred to as "Joseph I" and "Luís I", although there were no Joseph II, nor Luís II) and by the Papacy under Pope John Paul I. The ordinal for King Juan Carlos I of Spain is used in both Spanish and English, but he is sometimes simply called King Juan Carlos of Spain in English. In Russia, use of "The First" ordinal started with Paul I. Before him, neither Anna of Russia nor Elizabeth of Russia had the "I" ordinal.

asma

01-10-2012 09:05 AM

I get confused by this thread.What I know is the regnal number is used for the ruling monarch either male or female and not for consorts except some cases when the consort is himself or herself a ruling monarch for another country or both monarchs joined the two countries under their joint reign.
It's certainly not a male thing to use regnal number but as earlier poster mentioned there are a lot of male monarchs with the same neme in the same royal family which is confusing so the use of regnal number is more obvious for male monarchs.

Btw, At the royal family of Italy,the regnal numbers are realy confusing as the first king of italy was called Vittorio Emanuele II and his son the second king was called Umberto I.

Warren

01-10-2012 03:18 PM

:previous:
The Italian numeration followed that used by the Dukes of Savoy.
Vittorio Amedeo II, Duke of Savoy, became King Vittorio Amedeo II of Sardinia in 1720 when the Kingdom was ceded to the Dukes of Savoy;
King Vittorio Emanuele II of Sardinia became King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy in 1861 when the Savoy dynasty assumed the new Crown following Italian unification.

asma

01-10-2012 05:34 PM

[

Quote:

QUOTE=Warren;1356739]:previous:
The Italian numeration followed that used by the Dukes of Savoy.
Vittorio Amedeo II, Duke of Savoy, became King Vittorio Amedeo II of Sardinia in 1720 when the Kingdom was ceded to the Dukes of Savoy;
King Vittorio Emanuele II of Sardinia became King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy in 1861 when the Savoy dynasty assumed the new Crown following Italian unification.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks warren.I want to add that Umberto I was supposed to be Umberto IV according to Dukes of Savoy numeration but he chose to be called the first as he was the first Umberto of the kingdom of Italy.

PrincessKaimi

01-10-2012 06:34 PM

Wikipedia looks correct to me (and detailed in its explanation).

When people misunderstand each other in text, it often helps to put more paragraph breaks in. Some of the misunderstood posts on this thread have used the dreaded "wall of text" format.

King John is another example of a male monarch without a number.

Meraude

01-13-2012 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furienna
(Post 478856)

I believe our Swedish king Oscar I was always known as Oscar I after he had become our king, even before his son was known as King Oscar II. But I'm not sure.

Oscar I was not known as Oscar I during his reign, you can check these coins minted during his reign, the inscription says "Oscar Sveriges Norr. Goth. och Vend. Konung" without any numeral. Oscar I

So if Victoria and Daniel have a son and gives him the name Wilhelm, there wouldn't be any numeral in his name when he becomes king as there haven't been any Swedish king named Wilhelm before him.

PrincessKaimi

01-13-2012 01:29 PM

Great post, Maude - I guess we have to keep track of this nation by nation. Seems the majority of nations are similar to England...while those more closely connected to the Holy Roman Empire are apt to putting a number when one isn't strictly needed to distinguish the person? I'm sort of guessing what the summary of all this might be.

Furienna

01-13-2012 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meraude
(Post 1357942)

Oscar I was not known as Oscar I during his reign, you can check these coins minted during his reign, the inscription says "Oscar Sveriges Norr. Goth. och Vend. Konung" without any numeral. Oscar I

So if Victoria and Daniel have a son and gives him the name Wilhelm, there wouldn't be any numeral in his name when he becomes king as there haven't been any Swedish king named Wilhelm before him.

There were times when sovereigns had more than one ordinal.
Ferdinand II was King of Aragon from 1479 until 1516. As Ferdinand V he was King of Castile from 1475 to 1504.

Charles I was King of Spain from 1516 until 1556. As Charles V he reigned as Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1556.

Mbruno

04-01-2018 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla
(Post 2087975)

There were times when sovereigns had more than one ordinal.
Ferdinand II was King of Aragon from 1479 until 1516. As Ferdinand V he was King of Castile from 1475 to 1504.

The next King of Spain to bear the name Ferdinand called himself Ferdinand VI, following the numbering of the kings of Castile. Why ?

Gawin

04-01-2018 09:21 PM

It seems all Spanish monarchs followed the numbering of the kings of Castile after the death of Ferdinand II/V in 1516.

Philip II (1527-1598) was actually Philip I in Aragon as his grandfather Philip I only ruled Castile.

Alfonso XII (1857-1885) followed the numbering of King Alfonso XI of Castile but was only the sixth Alfonso in Aragon.

I don't why but I suspect it was because Castile and Aragon were still two separate crowns (under one ruler) until they were united after the War of the Spanish Succession & the higher ordinal number was preferred.

Gawin

04-02-2018 04:49 PM

That's a good point. I suppose because the HRE wasn't Spanish it didn't count in terms of the Spanish ordinal - only Castile & Aragon.

Mbruno

04-02-2018 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla
(Post 2088261)

Charles I was King of Spain from 1516 until 1556. As Charles V he reigned as Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 to 1556.

Indeed. That is why the next King of Spain after the Emperor with the name Charles was 'Charles II'.

An Ard Ri

04-02-2018 06:11 PM

He was also Charles II of Sicily and Charles IV of Naples.

CyrilVladisla

04-04-2018 05:28 PM

Charles III was King of Spain from 1759 until 1788. He ruled Naples as Charles VII and Sicily as Charles V.

Saz83

11-08-2018 02:20 PM

I have often wondered with the disputed British Queens Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, whether if we ever had a future Queen Matilda or Jane whether they would be known as Matilda/Jane II.

Ish

11-08-2018 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saz83
(Post 2168856)

I have often wondered with the disputed British Queens Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, whether if we ever had a future Queen Matilda or Jane whether they would be known as Matilda/Jane II.

I think that’s ultimately why they remain disputed while Edward V is not. His reign was confirmed retroactively by Edward VI. Matilda and Jane’s reigns have never been confirmed this way, despite Matilda at least having ruled longer.

An Ard Ri

11-08-2018 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saz83
(Post 2168856)

I have often wondered with the disputed British Queens Matilda and Lady Jane Grey, whether if we ever had a future Queen Matilda or Jane whether they would be known as Matilda/Jane II.

Why would she have been Jane II?

Iluvbertie

11-08-2018 05:03 PM

Saz83 is suggesting that a future Quee Jane would be Jane II as there was Lady Jane Grey - the 9 days Queen. If she was actually a Queen she would surely be Jane I.

Matilda is a different case because at her time the title of King/Queen wasn't used until they were crowned and she never was. The best she was was the Lady of the English. She was approaching her coronation when her demands became so harsh that the people of London rose up against her and refused to allow her to be crowned. There was also the small question that there was a living consecrated King who had not abdicated but was simply a prisoner.

I would suspect that due to these controversies neither name would be used again for an heir apparent.

Gawin

11-08-2018 07:40 PM

No doubt there would experts for Queen Matilda or Jane to consult on the matter.